Gannapao vs. Civil Service Commission G.R. No. 180141.

May 31, 2011

Facts: On October 1995, Barien, et al. representing the majority stockholders of UWTC sued Atty. Gironella and five other members of the UWTC Board of Directors for gross mismanagement. Barien, et al. further alleged that upon orders of Atty. Gironella, the buses regularly driven by them and other stockholders/drivers/workers were confiscated by a task force composed of former drivers, conductors and mechanics led by petitioner. Armed with deadly weapons such as guns and knives, SPO1 Gannapao and his group intimidated and harassed the regular bus drivers and conductors, and took over the buses. On December 22, 1995, Barien, et al. filed a verified complaint before the PNP Inspectorate Division at Camp Crame, charging SPO1 Rimando Gannapao with Grave Misconduct and Moonlighting with Urgent Prayer for Preventive Suspension and Disarming. SPO1 Gannapao was allegedly employed by Atty. Roy G. Gironella, the general manager appointed by the Board of Directors of UWTC, as his personal bodyguard with compensation coming from UWTC. The complaint passed a pre-charge investigation with The Inspector General, Internal Affairs Office (TIG-IAO) of the PNP. Petitioner filed his Answer on January 12, 1996. Petitioner specifically denied the allegations of the complaint and averred that he was never employed by Atty. Gironella as bodyguard. Instead, it was his twin brother, Reynaldo Gannapao, who worked as messenger at UWTC. In an undated Memorandum, Chief Service Inspectorate Police Superintendent Atty. Joselito Azarcon Casugbo recommended the dismissal of the complaint, citing the affidavit of desistance allegedly executed by Avelino Pediglorio. On January 30, 1997, Atty. Eduardo Sierra of the Office of the Director General, PNP, issued a subpoena to petitioner requiring him to appear at the hearing of Adm. Case No. 09-97 before the Office of the Legal Service in Camp Crame. Petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of res judicata, citing the earlier dismissal of the complaint against him by Chief Service Inspectorate Casugbo. However, PNP Chief Recaredo A. Sarmiento II denied the motion to dismiss. Petitioners motion for reconsideration was likewise denied under the Resolution dated April 14, 1998 of Police Director General Santiago L. Alio. Petitioner elevated the case to the NAPOLCOM National Appellate Board. His appeal, however, was dismissed in a Resolution dated December 29, 1999.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner was deprived due process. Rulings: The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was not deprived of due process. The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain ones side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. In the application of the principle of due process, what is sought to be safeguarded is not lack of previous notice but the denial of the opportunity to be heard. As long as a party was given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he was not denied due process. As records bear out, petitioner was adequately apprised of the

charges filed against him and he submitted his answer to the complaint while the case was still under a pre-charge investigation. When the Office of the Legal Service conducted a summary hearing on the complaint, petitioner was again duly notified of the proceedings and was given an opportunity to explain his side. Petitioner had ample opportunity to present his side during the hearing and he was even advised by the hearing officer that he may file a supplemental answer or a counter affidavit until February 17, 1997 or he may adopt his answer filed with the TIG-IAO. Instead, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss, reiterating the ground of res judicata, based on his own assertion that the case against him had already been heard, tried and finally terminated. Petitioner, however, did not present proof of such dismissal. Indeed, he could not have presented such proof because, as correctly pointed out by the OSG, the undated memorandum of Atty. Casugbo, the hearing official who conducted the preliminary inquiry/pre-charge investigation, was merely recommendatory. Atty. Casugbos report and recommendation was not approved by the PNP Director General, the disciplinary authority to whom such report of investigation is submitted, pursuant to Section (D) 4.01 of Memorandum Circular No. 96-010. Consequently, when the Office of the Legal Service of the PNP found the complaint to be a proper subject of a summary hearing, and a further investigation was conducted pursuant to the rules, the recommendation to dismiss was deemed not adopted or carried out. Having been given a reasonable opportunity to answer the complaint against him, petitioner cannot now claim that he was deprived of due process.